The scientific establishment has launched a fight back against the Trump administration and the slew of executive orders that threaten to dismantle research funding, with a warning that the next month could be critical for the future of U.S. science.
A 15% cap on indirect cost reimbursement that was announced by the U.S. NIH has been stalled by a court order for the time being. But researchers remain deeply concerned about the attempt, and about the new administration’s adversarial approach to research and universities.
In fiscal 2023, the NIH spent more than $35 billion on nearly 50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools and other research institutions across the nation. Of this funding, the NIH said about $26 billion was spent on direct research costs, while $9 billion was allocated to help cover “facilities and administration” through the agency’s indirect cost rate.
The fast pace in which the Trump administration has rolled out changes to how government and businesses operate – a disruptive effort that appears to be creating a new world order – has caught the attention of biopharma industry leaders who spoke Tuesday at the Biotechnology Innovation Organization’s CEO and Investor Conference in New York.
The immediate implementation of the U.S. NIH’s guidance to cut indirect costs included in its grants to 15% was quickly halted late Feb. 10 when a federal district judge granted a nationwide temporary restraining order in two separate challenges to the cuts that were to go into effect that day on all existing and new NIH grants.
Cognition Therapeutics Inc. evolved from the work of a neuroscientist and a chemist working in the San Francisco Bay area, seeking out targets to block the effects of Alzheimer’s disease. Since the company’s 2007 inception, it has received close to $200 million in U.S. NIH grant funding. Investors often tell CEO Lisa Ricciardi, who joined the company in 2020: “’That’s because you have a relationship with the FDA.’ Well, no. It’s because it’s competitive” and the company’s research has met the muster. “You have to apply two or three times. … It’s with rigor that these results are generated and that we’re able to get more funding.”
From Feb. 10, the U.S. NIH is to cut the amount of its grants that go to indirect costs, in a move it says will save $4 billion per annum, but which scientists say will hit breakthrough biomedical research. The NIH announced the cut on Friday, Feb. 7, saying there would be a flat rate of 15% for indirect costs, such as running laboratories, buying and maintaining equipment, data processing and storage, across all of its grants. That compares to an average rate historically of between 27% and 28%, the NIH said.
In the early days of the second Trump administration, what will happen to various government science agencies is not yet clear. Given the communications blackout imposed on agencies including the NIH and the CDC, most of what is known comes from anonymous sources and secondhand reports. Executive orders affecting the agencies are also still in the process of being interpreted, as well as subject to multiple legal challenges.
With key officials yet to be confirmed at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the acting secretary imposed an immediate pause throughout the department on publicly issuing any document or communication without first getting it approved by a presidential appointee.
The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research has been awarded a 5-year, $2.9 million grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to investigate the potential of human ghrelin as a medical countermeasure against radiation-induced gastrointestinal syndrome.
RSS
